The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued guidance reaffirming that artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be named as inventors. The directive follows a series of public hearings aimed at gathering feedback on the evolving role of AI in the patent process.
No AI Inventors Allowed
The USPTO explicitly states that AI systems and other “non-human entities” cannot be designated as inventors in patent applications. However, it clarifies that individuals using AI tools are not disqualified from being considered inventors. The focus is on the person making a substantial contribution to the invention’s development.
Disclosure Mandate for AI-Enhanced Inventions
To register a patent, individuals utilizing AI must disclose their AI involvement during the invention process. The agency emphasizes the necessity for applicants to list all material information essential for decision-making, including the role of AI.
Significant Contribution Requirement
Merely instructing an AI system to create without a substantial personal contribution disqualifies an individual from inventor status. The USPTO stresses that presenting a problem to an AI system and watching it solve it does not meet the inventive threshold. A noteworthy contribution involves crafting a specific problem and deriving a solution from the AI system.
Intellectual Dominance Not Enough
The agency dismisses the notion that merely having “intellectual dominance” over an AI system qualifies one as an inventor. Ownership or supervision of an AI creating inventions does not grant patent eligibility.
Precedent and Upheld Rulings
This reaffirmation builds upon the 2020 ruling, asserting that only “natural humans” can apply for patents. A noteworthy case involved researcher Steven Thaler, whose attempt to include his DABUS AI system as an inventor was rejected. Courts upheld the USPTO’s decision, signaling a precedent for excluding AI systems from patent eligibility. In a separate case, a federal court ruled against AI systems’ eligibility for copyright.
As the interplay between humans and AI in innovation continues to unfold, the USPTO’s latest guidance sets a clear boundary on patent eligibility, demanding tangible human contributions in the inventive process.